US-SEN: Will Roy Moore winning hurt the GOP in 2018?

[I’m not Stu]

Will Moore winning hurt the GOP's chances in 2018? Will this have an impact on states like Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Montana, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, and Nevada?

[tmthforu94]

It will hurt since Republican candidates will be tied to Moore. On the other hand, Moore losing would mean that Democrats have a much more realistic shot of taking the Senate in 2018, which would boost Democratic turnout. A race that should have been an easy GOP win with almost no national coverage has now become a lose-lose scenario for the GOP.

[I’m not Stu]

It will hurt since Republican candidates will be tied to Moore. On the other hand, Moore losing would mean that Democrats have a much more realistic shot of taking the Senate in 2018, which would boost Democratic turnout. A race that should have been an easy GOP win with almost no national coverage has now become a lose-lose scenario for the GOP.

What about in swing states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada? Wouldn't being tied to Moore in those states hurt?

[Mr. Smith]

Did Martha Coakley really equal Russ Feingold losing? Or was it just a symptom of a wave that was building anyway regardless of her victory [unless it was a traditional D margin] or lack thereof?

[I’m not Stu]

Did Martha Coakley really equal Russ Feingold losing? Or was it just a symptom of a wave that was building anyway regardless of her victory [unless it was a traditional D margin] or lack thereof?

Coakley losing had nothing to do with Feingold. Moore's pedophilia scandal might hurt the GOP in swing states. Coakley was never accused of sexual abuse.

[Holmes]

Coakley was just lame and really sucked. There was nothing controversial about her.

I don't think Moore winning would hurt the GOP in 2018 because people will have already moved on to other things. Small attention span in this country. I don't think he'll win anyway so it doesn't really matter.

[UncleSam]

Moore winning would help the GOP, no doubt about it. GOP candidates will be tied to Trump, Moore will be a distant afterthought. Only thing a Moore loss would do would be to energize Dems.

[I’m not Stu]

Moore winning would help the GOP, no doubt about it. GOP candidates will be tied to Trump, Moore will be a distant afterthought. Only thing a Moore loss would do would be to energize Dems.

I can't imagine that helping the GOP in swing states. Kelli Ward endorses Moore in Arizona, a Democratic-trending swing state. Arizona is nothing like Alabama. I imagine that would help Kyrsten Sinema.

[ursulahx]

I don't think Moore winning would hurt the GOP in 2018 because people will have already moved on to other things. Small attention span in this country. I don't think he'll win anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Except that Moore would be in the Senate and presumably regularly making headlines with his pronouncements.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Yes, but only if McConnell and the rest of the Republican caucus don't push for a vote to expel him.

If Franken resigns (Which I imagine he will do) and Moore is not expelled from the Senate, the Democrats will take the moral high ground and it will damage the GOP, especially with their already toxic standing with the youth and female populations.

[Young Conservative]

Yes. I still think he will drop out.

[Mr. Smith]

Coakley was just lame and really sucked. There was nothing controversial about her.

I don't think Moore winning would hurt the GOP in 2018 because people will have already moved on to other things. Small attention span in this country. I don't think he'll win anyway so it doesn't really matter.

This is exactly my point.

Controversies just aren't an object anymore because of this, unless you get a very targeted, endless character assassination campaign  [as seen last year with the "buh her emails"] OR a candidate really manages to shoot his/herself in the foot that many times [Trump, and possibly Moore now], tribalism overrides it all.

[Rjjr77]

Roy Moore winning wont effect the GOP in any way in other seats.

The reason isn't "Short attention spans" it is the fact that the scandal is a Roy Moore scandal not a GOP scandal

[Nichlemn]

I really doubt it (to any kind of significant degree). It won't be *good* for them, but the notion that swing voters in Nevada or wherever are going to be heavily influenced by a special election a year prior to me stinks of a "too-cute-by-half Beltway contrarian theory" that unfortunately even Nate Silver seems to have bought into. Even if Moore makes a bunch of stupid comments over the next year, is there any evidence that politicians doing this negatively effects their party? Did thousands of non-MN voters flip to Dems when say, Michele Bachmann said something dumb? Did Roland Burris' probable corruption cause significant Democratic losses in states other than IL?

I think it's a lot more plausible that a Jones win gives the Democrats a lot of enthusiasm (and probably most critically, an actual Senate seat).

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Moore has explicitly made his brand separate from the GOP brand. I don't think it will make much of a difference, particularly now that sex scandals are raining down on both sides and the allegations against Moore remain unproven. It could hurt Bannon potentially if the allegations turn out to be true, but he can correctly say that he supported Mo Brooks in the first place and that American law presumes innocent until proven guilty.

If he wins and then gets expelled from the Senate (my preferred option), it could help democrats by exacerbating the republican civil war, but it would probably mean senator Brooks, which is way better than senator Moore.

[I’m not Stu]

Moore has explicitly made his brand separate from the GOP brand. I don't think it will make much of a difference, particularly now that sex scandals are raining down on both sides and the allegations against Moore remain unproven. It could hurt Bannon potentially if the allegations turn out to be true, but he can correctly say that he supported Mo Brooks in the first place and that American law presumes innocent until proven guilty.

If he wins and then gets expelled from the Senate (my preferred option), it could help democrats by exacerbating the republican civil war, but it would probably mean senator Brooks, which is way better than senator Moore.

Bannon never supported Brooks, he always supported Moore.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Moore has explicitly made his brand separate from the GOP brand. I don't think it will make much of a difference, particularly now that sex scandals are raining down on both sides and the allegations against Moore remain unproven. It could hurt Bannon potentially if the allegations turn out to be true, but he can correctly say that he supported Mo Brooks in the first place and that American law presumes innocent until proven guilty.

If he wins and then gets expelled from the Senate (my preferred option), it could help democrats by exacerbating the republican civil war, but it would probably mean senator Brooks, which is way better than senator Moore.

Bannon never supported Brooks, he always supported Moore.

Try actually reading the article wikipedia (your source on this) cites and you will find that it is from August 28th. The primary with all of them was August 16th. Bannon only endorsed Moore after it was down to a runoff between him and Strange. The coverage of Brooks had been very favorable on Breitbart until he lost and it switched focus to promoting Moore and ensuring Strange would lose the runoff.

[I’m not Stu]

Moore has explicitly made his brand separate from the GOP brand. I don't think it will make much of a difference, particularly now that sex scandals are raining down on both sides and the allegations against Moore remain unproven. It could hurt Bannon potentially if the allegations turn out to be true, but he can correctly say that he supported Mo Brooks in the first place and that American law presumes innocent until proven guilty.

If he wins and then gets expelled from the Senate (my preferred option), it could help democrats by exacerbating the republican civil war, but it would probably mean senator Brooks, which is way better than senator Moore.

Bannon never supported Brooks, he always supported Moore.

Try actually reading the article wikipedia (your source on this) cites and you will find that it is from August 28th. The primary with all of them was August 16th. Bannon only endorsed Moore after it was down to a runoff between him and Strange. The coverage of Brooks had been very favorable on Breitbart until he lost and it switched focus to promoting Moore and ensuring Strange would lose the runoff.

Favorable coverage is almost but not quite an endorsement.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Moore has explicitly made his brand separate from the GOP brand. I don't think it will make much of a difference, particularly now that sex scandals are raining down on both sides and the allegations against Moore remain unproven. It could hurt Bannon potentially if the allegations turn out to be true, but he can correctly say that he supported Mo Brooks in the first place and that American law presumes innocent until proven guilty.

If he wins and then gets expelled from the Senate (my preferred option), it could help democrats by exacerbating the republican civil war, but it would probably mean senator Brooks, which is way better than senator Moore.

Bannon never supported Brooks, he always supported Moore.

Try actually reading the article wikipedia (your source on this) cites and you will find that it is from August 28th. The primary with all of them was August 16th. Bannon only endorsed Moore after it was down to a runoff between him and Strange. The coverage of Brooks had been very favorable on Breitbart until he lost and it switched focus to promoting Moore and ensuring Strange would lose the runoff.

Favorable coverage is almost but not quite an endorsement.

It might as well have been since Breitbart and Bannon are so tied together. Even if you disagree with that assessment, you should concede that "he always supported Moore" was a lie.

[ShamDam]

Depends on what you mean. Are we talking about all election races, or just control of the Senate? Obviously having Roy Moore to contend with for the next two years can't be helpful in House or Governor's races, so in that sense it would hurt.

But in the Senate, no matter how bad the GOP's brand gets because of its association with Roy Moore, the simple fact is that Democrats will need to win Texas next year if Doug Jones doesn't win this race. If Roy Moore wins, even if it does somehow boost Beto O'Rourke's chances of beating Ted Cruz, it won't be by enough to make a bigger difference than Doug Jones winning.

If Roy Moore loses, there's a 100% chance that the Democrats will have picked up 1 of the 3 seats they need to take control of the Senate. If he wins, then their chances of winning Texas increase by, what, at most, 10 percent?

It's still in Senate Republicans' best interest for Roy Moore to win in terms of getting their legislation passed. That is one of the reasons you haven't seen unequivocal condemnation from the whole chamber. Other than general inhumanity.

[ursulahx]

I really doubt it (to any kind of significant degree). It won't be *good* for them, but the notion that swing voters in Nevada or wherever are going to be heavily influenced by a special election a year prior to me stinks of a "too-cute-by-half Beltway contrarian theory" that unfortunately even Nate Silver seems to have bought into. Even if Moore makes a bunch of stupid comments over the next year, is there any evidence that politicians doing this negatively effects their party? Did thousands of non-MN voters flip to Dems when say, Michele Bachmann said something dumb? Did Roland Burris' probable corruption cause significant Democratic losses in states other than IL?

I think it's a lot more plausible that a Jones win gives the Democrats a lot of enthusiasm (and probably most critically, an actual Senate seat).

Yeah, I originally voted and argued for “yes”, but the speed with which Moore has bounced back makes me think it won’t make much difference in the long run. This is the world we live in now.